>>>>> "w" == wolverian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
w> On Wed, May 25, 2005 at 01:38:27PM -0500, Rod Adams wrote:
>> Or use
>> @a <== 1,2,3;
w> I would just like to say that I like this idiom immensely.
w> my @foo <== 1, 2, 3;
w> reads extremely well to me, especially since I've always disliked the
w> usage of '=' as an operator with side effects. (I'm strange like that.)
please don't use <== for simple assignments as it will confuse too many
newbies and auch. it (and its sister ==>) are for pipelining ops like
map/grep and for forcing assignment to the slurpy array arg of funcs
(hey, i think i said that correctly! :). = is still fine for basic
assignment and everyone will understand it immediately.
the only advantage in the above case is the different prececences of =
and <== which allows dropping of parens with the latter. i don't
consider that so important a win as to be used often. and they are at
equal huffman levels as the =() is matched in length by <==.
Uri Guttman ------ [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------- http://www.stemsystems.com
--Perl Consulting, Stem Development, Systems Architecture, Design and Coding-
Search or Offer Perl Jobs ---------------------------- http://jobs.perl.org